Talk:Human overpopulation

Overpopulation IS a fact

Humans are overpopulated and it is a fac[[^{Link title}

Block quote

overpopulation:

]]t. Any reasonable definition of overpopulation must recognize that if the organism consumes its necessary resources faster than those resources can renew, then the organism is by definition overpopulated. One cannot argue that we are not dependent on fossil fuels. Imagine how many billions would die within a year if oil and coal consumption were halted right now. I added a paragraph at the beginning of the article to state this. We humans may invent ways to sustain the current population without consuming resources faster than they renew, but until then we are overpopulated. We might also manage to comprehend this and reduce the birth rate such that the population drops to a sustainable level without any drop in the quality of life. In other words, we might be able to solve the current overpopulation problem without great suffering associated with the natural solution to overpopulation, but again, that does not change the fact that currently there are too many humans on the planet. I agree that poverty does not prove overpopulation and that many are confused by this. Indeed you've got it somewhat backwards. Consumption of fossil fuels has made our lives extremely luxurious, not "living in poverty", but it is that unsustainable consumption that means we are overpopulated.Johntaves (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Overpopulation is not a fact. Fossil fuels are not necessary resources. As they get more scarce, they get more expensive, and as (and even before) they get more expensive, there is an increasing incentive to develop substitutes. --Forp (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, humanity will be hard pressed to find energy resources that will fully replace the energy provided to us by fossil fuels. Scaling up renewable resources is possible, but sufficient action is not being taken and likely will not be until it's too late. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is not primarily concerned with facts, but with generally held views supported by reliable sources. This does not make the discussion of the factual situation unimportant. However, we are not supposed to insert facts that we just establish ourselves here; this is considered as original research.

Thus, for the article, the relevant question is: What do those "those who should be in the know" state about overpopulation? In this case, there is actually an answer with some authority. There is actually a very clear and 'official' consensus in the scientific community to the effect that overpopulation is a real problem, and that the population growth must be eliminated rather soon.

I refer to IAP statement on population growth, a joint statement of 58 academies of science from all over this planet. This does not make the existence of overpopulation a fact, but it does make it the consensus opinion in the scientific world of to-day.

There should definitely be a section in this article about concerns for overpopulation; and the IAP statement should be given a prominent place. Now, I do not know any criticism of the statement; but if any editor can find sources for such criticism -- from reliable and preferrably from independent scientific sources, of course -- then such criticism should be included, too.

If no such criticism of the IAP statement or of the theses therein exist, then the statement is the undisputed consensus of the scientific world. Else, it is a 'disputed consensus'. JoergenB (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Population growth" images

The two images given in the "Population growth" section claim a slight population decline in the 17th century. This is NOT supported by any of the sources listed in the article "World population estimates". It seems the author of the files used the lowest population estimate given there for each date, instead of sticking to one of the sources (or at least using the average value each time), thus creating an "artificial" decline by using different sources for different dates. IMO this should be corrected, or the images removed.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Working Notes & Base-data used to generate enhanced plots showing population falls

As I’ve been rather preoccupied with several other projects lately I haven’t had as much time recently to visit, or contribute to, Wikipedia as I would have liked. Apologies therefore for the delay in noticing (and so responding to) Roentgenium111's post here. Incidentally I only found it completely randomly – given the nature of the comment it might have been helpful to have checked to see who created the charts (me) and perhaps have posted a line or two on my talk page to link here so I could have found it sooner?

I spent several months, on and off, carefully and painstakingly developing the two charts mentioned (in addition to several related charts I also produced around the same time). It had always concerned me that most of the population data for this and related articles was presented largely as very “granular” tables together with charts using logarithmic scales. Whilst logarithmic scales are certainly valid and useful in many situations, their main importance is in showing rates of change rather than the base data or change itself; they are also useful in dramatically compressing curves to fit them more neatly on the page, or in a box, though at the expense of clarity since it can then be difficult to properly visualise or comprehend (on a linear scale) the actual growth they represent.

When I originally contributed these charts in January 2009 they were not detailed enough (as they were initially based purely on the “granular” tables on Population and their various quoted sources) to show the effects on Population of either the Black Death or later plagues.

Curiously enough it was thanks to an edit by Roentgenium111 last year to World Population (that had one of his typically abrupt but actually quite helpful annotations, for which I was grateful; “removed claim of continuous growth since 1000 BC since it is false (from 1340 to 1400 the population shrank dramaticallly)” that originally drew my attention to these anomalies and motivated me to review and enhance my charts (using a wider range of equally authoritative base-data) to include them.

Obviously in this connection there is only relatively limited data available, all of which is estimated. However close scrutiny of it will indeed reveal the estimated population falls I have carefully plotted both for the Black Death and Plagues. In addition to updating the charts I also edited World Population "(Refinement to notes recently added (14:06, 18 March 2009) by Roentgenium111 regarding significant short-term falls due to Black Death & plague)" Revision as of 00:49, 21 March 2009

Luckily I still have all of my working notes, data extracts and development spreadsheets (which I made in order to plot the curves) - Please see chart added here on the right. I’ve highlighted the relevant data in yellow for (it’s towards the end of the long screenshot).

Roentgenium111 was therefore completely correct last March regarding the former, but mistaken on this occasion regarding the latter. He is also mistaken in assuming I only used “lower estimates” as I was most careful to collate and average the data in order to arrive at what I hoped would be the best “smoothed” curves utilising the best of the available data deemed reliable.

Here’s an extract of the relevant data, showing the fall in Population caused by Plague, that forms the basis for the two charts;

Year	Summary -lower	Summary -upper	Biraben	Durand -lower	Durand -upper	Haub	McEvedy & Jones	Thomlinson -lower	Thomlinson -upper	UN 1973 -lower	UN 1973 -upper	UN 1999	USCB
1500AD	425	540	460	440	540	-	425	-	-	-	-	500	-
1600AD	545	579	579	-	-	-	545	-	-	-	-	-	-
1650AD	470	545	-	-	-	500	545	500	-	470	545	-	-
1700AD	600	679	679	-	-	-	610	600	-	-	-	-	-

I hope this helps clarify the validity of the two population dips I carefully added last year to the curves? My thanks again to Roentgenium111 who first prompted me (albeit indirectly) to investigate this detail in the first place, though is now questioning it! Barryz1 (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Barryz1 for your detailed reply. I have not checked all your data in detail, but I agree that by just looking at the bare numbers the graph you created is correct. However, I stick to my claim that the data do NOT imply a population decline in the 17th century (I admit they do not disprove such a decline either). The problem is that Biraben only gives estimates for 1600 and 1700 (which are both the highest estimates for these years), but not for 1650. Contrarily, the UN-1973 provides the lowest estimate for 1650, but gives no data for 1600 and 1700 (at least not in the table above). None of the individual sources gives a population decline between 1600 and 1650. The only one giving estimates for both 1600 and 1650 (McEvedy & Jones) has the same values in both, implying a constant population size. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Working Notes showing curve generated using Biraben data as published

Roentgenium111 – sorry for the further delay; I really have been busy with many other things lately and didn’t just want to give you a casual answer; I like to have sufficient time to investigate things carefully then review the data and consider the best method of presenting it clearly and accurately.

Thanks for confirming you agree my mathematical treatment of the data, and the way I’ve plotted it, is correct in itself. Obviously it’s always possible to make mistakes (although I do take considerable care and trouble over these things) so no harm whatsoever in you checking it too.

What you said regarding the fact that no individual data series, taken in isolation, show Population falls for 1650 is certainly a valid point. I’m sure it’s no coincidence though that the ‘McEvedy & Jones’ estimates show static (nil or zero) growth in Population for the year 1650 (they estimate it was 545 million, unchanged or alternatively back to where it was, since 1600). Whilst not an actual fall this is highly significant.

We know that all of the data, from every series used, is based only on estimates (even for very recent census data) and that as we go back in time naturally the variance on these estimates becomes greater. (As an aside; I find it interesting to see some of the many ways in which these estimates have been derived, for example an article showing how Biraben modelled the population of France, alone, from 1500 – 1700 gives some insight).

There are many scientific, logical and perfectly well established methods available for combining estimates from disparate sources for related data (whether the data has been measured or just modelled). The one I had previously used in this case was to take the smoothed average of highest and lowest estimates agregated for each year published using all of the available data. Obviously I could have shown error bars (or alternatively error bands) on my charts, in which case the bar (or band) would have been slightly wider for 1650 as there is a missing estimate from Biraben for that year. It would have also been possible to use weighted averages and, or, completely disregard data from the more “patchy” series.

Working Notes showing curve that can be generated using interpolated data within Biraben series

An alternative, and perhaps slightly more sophisticated, approach is to interpolate the missing data. In this case that can be done by using the arithmetical average from the years 1600 and 1700 for the same series (if needing instead a datum point for, say, 1640 then a weighted average of the previous and subsequent estimates could have been used). The result is 629 million for Biraben’s series for 1650, which is of course far higher than the previous “upper figure” for that year of 545 million. Perhaps surprisingly, even when using this higher figure the chart still shows a pronounced dip in Population growth that year before recovering shortly after. This is also consistent with the rates of change preceding and succeeding the smoothed average curve.

Graphically, therefore, even on refining the analysis to “plug” the data hole with an interpolated value we get more or less the same result (the dip is still there but slightly less pronounced, that’s all).

You might worry that perhaps the method of interpolation itself is invalid. We can test that hypothesis by using the method to try “predicting” already published data. For example comparing the arithmetic means of data for 1700 and 1800 with the published figure for 1750, and again for 1800 and 1900 with the figure for 1850. We can do the same for 1250 but should disregard (or at least be cautious of) 1340 as we know that occurred during a change to the pattern caused by the Black Death.

Here are the results of that exercise;

Year	Biraben	Interpolated	%Variance
1200AD	400
1250AD	416	416	0.00%
1300AD	432
1340AD	443	403	-9.03%
1400AD	374
1500AD	460
1600AD	579
1650AD	- ??? -	629
1700AD	679
1750AD	770	816.5	6.04%
1800AD	954
1850AD	1,241	1,293.5	4.23%
1900AD	1,633
		...Average =	0.31%

This is obviously only a “sanity check” rather than rigorous analysis since we’re necessarily reducing curves to linear relationships, albeit over shorter time periods. The results are however reassuring close to expectation.

Next, for comparison let’s review other authoritative published analysis of Population for the range 1600 - 1700. There’s plenty “out there” but not surprisingly everything I found appears to have used the same source data that I also selected (namely; Biraben, Durand, Haub, McEvedy & Jones, Thomlinson etc). In November 2006 Dangauthier uploaded a chart 'Population Curve' that is still very widely used. From its source data (again, based on exactly the same sources that I also used) we see;

Year	Population/m
1200	360
1250	400
1300	360
1340	443
1400	350
1500	425
1600	545
1650	470
1700	600
1750	790
1800	980
1815	1000

Note the significant fall in the data series from 545 million in 1600 to just 470 million in 1650. I personally believe this is slightly misleading and could be argued incorrect as it appears to be based only on the “lower summary” figures from the source table rather than taking a smoother more balanced view that includes the whole range of data available (as I have tried to do). However despite this potential defect in design and detail it does nonetheless seem a popular and well used graphical representation.

Outside Wikipedia and government census offices we can turn to academia; for example at the University of Washington we find Prof. P.B. Rhines has formally taught from figures again modelled using the same basic source data we have all used (though again following the same method of Dangauthier in apparently relying on “lower summary” rather than carefully smoothing from the whole range of data available that is deemed reliable and accepted). You can see for example in his 'Global Population notes';

Year	Population/m
1200	360
1250	400
1300	360
1400	350
1500	435
1600	545
1650	470
1700	600
1750	629
1800	813

Whilst some of these figures differ markedly from those used by Dangauthier the fall modelled to 470 million in the year 1650 is identical.

In conclusion I believe that the two existing charts you have questioned;Poulation-since-10000BC and Poulation-since-1000AD, are valid as they stand and are broadly and closely consistent with all source data and mainstream published analysis of that data. The significant (and I believe plausible) fall in Population shown for 1650 is plotted as less severe than sometimes shown elsewhere as I have opted for an approach that incorporates averages of ‘high-low’ estimates taken from the whole of the available data. I believe that is a slightly improved (though perhaps more time consuming) method of analysis.

I’ve indicated that one way in which the charts could perhaps be further refined is by using an interpolated value in the Biraben series for the year 1650. Having already done the work it would now be a simple matter for me to implement this, however I’d be interested in first gauging the reaction from other established authors or editors of this article. Would people prefer the interpolated data to be used or would they feel that a slight distortion as strictly speaking it’s not a “published” data point?

Please let me know your thoughts! Barryz1 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My thought is: This is impressive, but please read Wikipedia:No original research carefully once more! JoergenB (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Barryz1: Thanks for your answer and your further work in the charts. I think you've done a "step in my direction" by interpolating Biraben's data for 1650, but by the same logic one would have to interpolate the other data sets for 1600 and 1700 as well, say linearly. I haven't done this, but I already know what the result would be like: mathematically, every single set of data would give us a monotonic function of time, so their sum and thus their average (which is just 1/n times the sum, with n= number of data sets) would be as well (and "Summary lower" and"Summary upper" also). So there would no longer be a decrease in the 1600s.

However, this would be much more work, and JoergenB's objection is valid: while such interpolations would be "scientifically" preferrable, they would probably be considered original research. So I suggest you keep the two charts as they are (without interpolations), but remove the "Plague" explanation for the 2nd decrease, and add a footnote like this: "The 1600-1650 decrease shown is due to statistical reasons, the raw data do not indicate a decrease of population". Would this be fine with you? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Inconsitent Claims About World Population Growth

The article claims that, "World population is currently growing by approximately 74 million people per year. If current fertility rates continued, in 2050 the total world population would be 11 billion, with 169 million people added each year." These two sentences have two completely different estimates for world population growth. Either one number should be omitted, or a range of numbers should be used, such as "somewhere between 74 and 169 million people are added each year." Jonthebranch (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2009

Resolved

Quote

I recommend adding a quote:

“ Consider the problem of over-population. Rapidly mounting human numbers are pressing ever more heavily on natural resources requiring the annual increase of numbers to be reduced. But how is it to be done ... ? Using famine, pestilence and war on one hand, or by birth control on the other ? -- Aldous Huxley (link) ”

“ Neglect of an effective birth control policy is a never-failing source of poverty which, in turn, is the parent of revolution and crime. --Aristotle ”

(link)

“ We have been God-like in our planned breeding of our domestic plants and animals, but rabbit-like in our unplanned breeding of ourselves. -- Arnold Toynbee ”

(link</ref>

Perhaps someone can include these quotes to the article ? 217.136.156.187 (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in a section on historical opposition to overpopulation, distinct from modern critiques. I can see that as being worthwhile. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see a source for the Aristotle quote. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this paper, it's from Politics. Here's a book source too. However, a look through the Wikisource copy of Politics reveals no such quote; a little research turns up this commentary, under VII: 16 Marriage and Children, where Kraut discusses the inference of the availability of contraception. I would say that quote is not attributable to Aristotle at all, but is a summary of a particular commentator's interpretation. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, AniRaptor2001. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke

In one section here Clarke is described as enthusiastically supporting a theory that humans will end up colonising places outside the Earth, and then a few lines later he is described as having said it was not a viable option - which is right, or did he change his mind? 88.165.185.189 (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Even an efficient colonialisation of other planets would be no remedy for a continuing exponential population growth, in the long run. It would just postpone the problem. JoergenB (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move to "Human overpopulation"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the page  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

There is no reason that the word "overpopulation" should, by itself and by default (be implied by Wikipedia to) apply only to humans.
That choice of title reflects a subjective, humancentric systemic bias.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support as it is also used frequently to refer to animals. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• No ambiguity. Oppose a move until the animal overpopulation articles are created. Of course there's a "humancentric systemic bias." The vast majority of Wikipedia's readers are human and there have been no complaints from the non-humans (yet). — AjaxSmack 04:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Population comes from the Latin word populatio, meaning a people. So in its nature population, and by extension overpopulation, is describing groups of people. Any instances where it is used about animals it must have been borrowed from the the meaning referring to people. And in any event, it is quite clear that overpopulation about humans is primary topic over Overpopulation in wild animals and Overpopulation in companion animals.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"physicists agree that there are billions of years of nuclear fuel available.[52]" is an obvious lie

so obvious I won't insult your intelligence by explaining why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.130.179 (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reference given in the article is from a physicist (Cohen), and his reasoning seems quite plausible. So, before you "insult" the editor who claimed this (not me, by the way), it would be nice if you DID "explain why" it is a lie, e.g. by giving a reference to a physicist disagreeing with Cohen.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a plentiful stockpile of uranium on earth. judging how to scale a nuclear plant is more economic and safe than coal with construction of such plants restarting world wide I don't see the point of this section . I think it should be it 79.176.49.28 (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Globio info and map

I'm very interested in including the information available at GLOBIO website, including this map, which highlights the true extent of human influence on the planet. What is the best way to put this in? Is it freely available in any way? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Effects on Standard of Living and Ecology

Standard of Living

---

One aspect of overpopulation that is generally disregarded in debates is the assumed externality that will be experienced almost exclusively in First World countries. Researchers such as Anup Shah posit that as the population of a given first world region increases, the standard of living for each individual in that region will decrease (Shah, 1998). Studies conducted using persons and animals have been revealed that as a given population increases, individuals experience greater stress and experience difficulty when interacting with others. Shah also notes that humans in particular would have to deal with overcrowding at places such as beaches and marketplaces, severe competition for employment, greater amounts of traffic, as well as new governmental regulations (1998). Technology advocates maintain that human ingenuity will evolve to compensate for a “low” standard of living – this, usually referring to a lack of food. Shah notes this, but speculates that such food will most probably consist of grain – a diet severely lacking in basic human nutritional needs.

---

Ecology

---

One aspect of overpopulation that is proving to have detrimental effects on the environment is a loss of biodiversity. Executive Director of the Novartis Foundation and economist, Klaus Leisinger notes the importance of tropical diversity of biodiversity for the food security of certain indigenous people, and also how a crossbreeding of certain species as being vital to global nutrition. Three hundred species of plant in tropical Asia are destroyed every year (Leisinger, Schmitt, Pandya-Lorch, 2002). Tropical forests are suffering the worst from the destructive forces of man than any other ecosystem on Earth. Leisinger also supports that if the current disposition of species destruction continues unabated, it is expected that the Earth will lose 10-50 percent of all species in the following fifty years (2002). Another endangered species is essentially an ecosystem within itself: coral reef. Though coral reefs occupy only one percent of the total ocean floor, they are the natural environments to 25% of all marine species. Due to increases in population, and the resultant increase of carbon dioxide output, ocean acidification continues to increasingly dissolve these vital ecosystems. Many believe that coral reefs do not provide to human interests at all. Reefs are responsible for keeping coastal tsunamis at bay in some regions, as well as yielding nearly 6 million tons of fish each year (2002). These reefs are incredibly important to human interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.130 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Third world overpopulation

Why isn't this article mentions that almost all overpopulation and youth bulges occur in the third world as defined by it's article. 79.176.49.28 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Carrying Capacity section is flawed.

For starters, 'Carrying Capacity' (CC) is the level of population that can be held indefinitely. Estimates of population that is based on things like growth, water and irrigable land do not count as an estimate of CC. The entire picture over a very long span must be analyzed. The citations in the first paragraph are not adequate. They neglect the most important of resources which is fossil fuels. Secondly I have never heard of a real study putting the human CC at 16 billion. This is so much over the top that I consider it to be vandalism. The general population may believe that population growth can continue infinitely but no rational scientist believes this. I will say this again - Carrying capacity is the population that is sustainable! Not 50 - 100 years from now. Not with miraculous unknown technology. It is the population that can exist when fossil and nuclear fuels are used up or too expensive ENERGETICALLY to mine. Other resources such as trees, marine life, phosphorus (for fertilizer) have to be included to give an adequate assessment. I am going to fix it because its flawed. --66.223.168.45 (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)